PDA

View Full Version : MT Propeller for the 390 EXP119?


GarthR
02-15-2021, 03:53 PM
Hi.

I'm just starting to research what prop I want for my RV14a 390EXP119 Thunderbolt engine (dual pmags). Is the MT propeller option new? On the order form it's dated 1/28/21. I'm not sure if that is a revision date or an original date. I haven't ordered the engine yet but need a prop decision so I can order both and take advantage of the discount.

My choices seem to be:

Hartzell 2 blade Aluminum (C2YR-1BFP/F7497)
Hartzell 2 blade Composite (G2YR/N7605W-2X)
Hartzell 3 blade Composite (3CR00404X "Raptor")
MT 3 blade Composite (MTV-12-B/188-59f)

Hartzell has been around forever (1917) and I would have no problem ordering one of their props. MT has "just" 40 years experience but advertises 90% of the European market (headquarters in Germany) and 30% of the US market. They seem very reputable which is probably why Vans has even listed them as an option.

I've read the MT order page notes and warnings. In one of the notes, Vans states they have not tested all the MT propellers yet. I'm going to call them this week to see if they have tested my potential combo.

In the meantime, if anyone has any thoughts pro or con to the MT option, I would appreciate any comments!

Also, I searched the forums here using "MT propeller", "MT" and "Propeller" and didn't find any relevant posts. If someone can point me to a discussion, I'd appreciate that too!

Thanks,

-Garth

Reflex
02-15-2021, 07:08 PM
I went with the MT 3 blade on my -14. Not flying yet so I don't have hard data. However, I can tell you why I made the decision:


No operating (RPM) limitations
Lighter weight (roughly 20 lbs vs. 2 blade Hartzell) I can spend that weight elsewhere (like a back up alternator and/or battery)
Less gyroscopic impact on the air frame, engine, and components
The material/construction of the prop tends to dampen vibration where an aluminum prop amplifies it.
Easily repairable - multiple repair stations in the U.S.
Fully stocked U.S. Distributor (McFarlane)


Note: MT does not recommend the MTV-12 the IO-390. The MTV-9 which is a bit more robust is the preferred prop.

I had an opportunity to fly an MT 3 blade installed on an O-360 180 hp on a C-175. I flew the in the plane before installation and had the opportunity to fly the plane after the installation. The previous prop was a 2 blade Hartzell. The difference can't be described.

I'd recommend you give McFarlane Aviation a call to discuss. Doesn't cost a thing to ask questions. I was able to talk to Dave McFarlane himself and found him to be incredibly interested in my project in RV's in general. By the Way McFarlane aviation is an advertiser on this site.

Link to McFarlane's prop page: https://www.mcfarlaneaviation.com/articles/flight-resource/

My 2 cents.

9GT
02-15-2021, 07:14 PM
If you decide MT, you may want to shop around for better pricing than Van’s offers. I got mine from Tiffinaire in Ohio and saved over $1000. That was around 2 years ago though.

Taltruda
02-15-2021, 09:32 PM
I’ve found the MT props to be significantly slower on the top end than a Hartzell prop.. that would concern me if I were prop shopping..

swisseagle
02-16-2021, 07:15 AM
Also think about the 300 series from WhirlWind.

https://www.whirlwindaviation.com/props/300series.asp

But be careful about CG .. prop is very light!

SBendl
02-17-2021, 04:14 AM
I went with the MT 3 blade on my -14. Not flying yet so I don't have hard data. However, I can tell you why I made the decision:


No operating (RPM) limitations
Lighter weight (roughly 20 lbs vs. 2 blade Hartzell) I can spend that weight elsewhere (like a back up alternator and/or battery)
Less gyroscopic impact on the air frame, engine, and components
The material/construction of the prop tends to dampen vibration where an aluminum prop amplifies it.
Easily repairable - multiple repair stations in the U.S.
Fully stocked U.S. Distributor (McFarlane)


Note: MT does not recommend the MTV-12 the IO-390. The MTV-9 which is a bit more robust is the preferred prop.

I had an opportunity to fly an MT 3 blade installed on an O-360 180 hp on a C-175. I flew the in the plane before installation and had the opportunity to fly the plane after the installation. The previous prop was a 2 blade Hartzell. The difference can't be described.

I'd recommend you give McFarlane Aviation a call to discuss. Doesn't cost a thing to ask questions. I was able to talk to Dave McFarlane himself and found him to be incredibly interested in my project in RV's in general. By the Way McFarlane aviation is an advertiser on this site.

Link to McFarlane's prop page: https://www.mcfarlaneaviation.com/articles/flight-resource/

My 2 cents.

I'm also thinking about a MT prop in my RV 14 and contacted the factory a couple of weeks ago. They recommend the MTV-12 for the IO390 engine

Jpm757
02-17-2021, 09:56 AM
Garth,
I have an MTV12B/183-59B 3 blade on my -7 with a YIO-360M1B.

Pros:
Incredibly smooth!!!!
Exceptional takeoff/climb performance.
No RPM limitations.
Maintenance free between overhauls ( no fittings to grease).
Very durable field repairable blades.
Lightweight (c.g. considerations).
Includes mounted/ painted complete spinner assembly.
Literally ready to bolt on.
Cons:
Pricey. $$
Prop shipped from Germany unassembled, mine sent to local prop shop for assembly & delivery. ($350).
16 week lead time from Van's in 2017.
Lightweight may cause c.g. issues.

400 hours on this setup, have flown in rain/snow/ice & lots of unimproved strips. Prop looks like new. Cruise speed against my buddy's O-360 2 blade Hartzell RV-8 is within a few knots. If I had a do over, I wouldn't change a thing.

Champ
02-17-2021, 04:17 PM
Ordered an MTV-9B/183-50a from Vans a couple weeks ago to replace my Hartzell BA on my non-counterweighted IO375. The price from Vans was identical to the price direct from MT except Vans only required a 25% down payment - MT wanted 100% up front. Vans price included shipping to a local assembler - MT’s price was crating & shipping extra.

Delivery - 14 wk.

MT Customer Service was great in giving straight answers to questions.

SkyJunkie
02-18-2021, 09:54 AM
One of the McFarlane Aviation/Flight-Resource employees offers the following advice on the subject:

I am a former Vans RV-6 owner and current owner of an MT prop on a different plane and a direct affiliation with MT Propellers (one of the principals of Flight-Resource, recently merged with McFarlane Aviation Products). I do have a dog in this hunt, but also have had many years of opportunity to personally work with MT and Hartzell and Cato Propellers.

The most important point I wish to make in this post is that the MTV-12 series prop from MT is a ‘medium duty’ design. The MTV-9 series is the heavy duty design. Bare stock, Lycoming 4-cylinder (-320 and -360) engines with low compression pistons, magneto timing, counterweighted crankshafts and carbureted intake are perfect to mate with the MTV-12 series propellers…BUT…

Many builders ‘enhance’ the performance of these engines. I have seen many dyno tested well into the low to medium 200 HP ranges. The measured firing pulses felt at the propeller are massive compared to that measured on a stock version as described above.

These strong pulse vibrations sometimes ring at frequencies that match the natural resonance frequency of metal propellers. When this happens, very destructive things happen quickly. This is why there are yellow ‘do not operate’ RPM ranges when using metal props on many Lycoming 4-cylinder engines.

The wood-composite load carrying core of the MT prop is not affected by this. In fact, wood dampens vibration better than any propeller material known to date. Another benefit of the wood core is that is immune to stress risers or fatigue. A deep cut in an MT blade does not lead to blade failure like it does on a metal prop…and the MT blade can be repaired, with simple household epoxy by the owner.

Back to the MTV-12 vs MTV-9. If you are going to enhance the power of your -360 or - 390 Lycoming engine, you should be using a propeller designed for that application, in this case the MTV-9 series prop. The concerns voiced by some MT owners about grease leaks and bearing wear are matched almost 100% to the use of a prop that is being put to the edge of design limits. Those issues would not be present if the correct propeller were used.

Conclusions:
1: The Lycoming 4-cylinder engine design is nearly ‘bullet proof’ but produces very strong firing pulse vibrations felt by a propeller.

2: Counterweighted crankshaft engines assist with controlling vibration somewhat.

3: Use of a 3-blade prop vs a 2-blade prop helps control the destructive vibration.

4: The MTV-9 heavy duty 3-blade hub is recommended over the MTV-12 series for use on engines without counter-weights and for engines with ‘more than stock output.’

The experts of Flight-Resource / McFarlane Aviation are available to answer your questions and guide you to selection of the proper prop for your plane. They are the worlds largest volume MT distributor with the experience and thousands of flight hours of actual use and testing in their personal log books.

Flight Resource/McFarlane Aviation has a large inventory of MT Propellers in stock for immediate shipment, including propellers that fit VAN's aircraft.
If you need a propeller not in stock, Flight-Resource/McFarlane Aviation will special order MT Propellers from the manufacturer in Germany with only 25% down payment.

GarthR
02-22-2021, 09:18 PM
Wow, thanks for the info everyone!

For all the reasons stated above and the fact that MT has a good history and reputation behind them I'm going to go with the MTV-9-B/183-50a for my 14a. I realize I will probably give up a few knots but I'm ok with that trade off. I have talked to McFarland and they have been very helpful. I haven't shopped it around yet but hopefully will get to that this week.

Thanks again for all the responses.

-Garth

Frogman208
02-23-2021, 11:30 AM
Garth,

Late to party but maybe you will see this. Don't discount Whirlwind propeller. They have a new propeller called 330 series that will compete against the MT MTV-9 propeller. I had the same issues with 200 HP, non-counterweight crank, and harmonic issues (read RPM restrictions). Had the 2 blade Hartzell (with RPM) restriction) and MT MTV-12 (with RPM) restrictions and now flying Whirlwind 330 series/3-blade with NO restrictions. The Whirlwind 330 series is a new design (basically 72HRT blades and beefed up 300 series hub). Comes in at 52 pounds, which is lighter than MT MTV-9 and Hartzell 2 blade weight. I have a prototype 3 blade design but I believe they are going to make a 2-blade design also (even less weight). You really need to call Whirlwind in San Diego and talk with Hunter or the owner Jim before you order the MT MTV-9. Don't get me wrong, I think MT makes a great propeller and MTV-9 is a great propeller but at close to 20K versus 14K for the 330 series is a lot of money.

SkyJunkie
02-24-2021, 10:45 AM
It seems like there is always more to the story. It is my understanding that the Whirlwind is untested and uncertified. One of the last things you want to worry about while flying is the integrity of your propeller. I would never run an uncertified prop, period.

If you are thinking of ordering a propeller you need to check out the pricing, the MTV-9 is $15,450 retail not $20,000 and McFarlane normally sells them for 10% off or $13,950, same as the uncertified Whirlwind.

One last point is I would think about is re-sale of the aircraft. Because the MT propeller is a certified propeller it will add value to your work and all you have invested in the aircraft. At some point in time the aircraft will be sold, it will sell for more with a known certified propeller.

Freemasm
02-24-2021, 11:11 AM
It seem like there is always more to the story. It is my understanding that the Whirlwind is untested and uncertified. One of the last things you want to worry about while flying is the integrity of your propeller. I would never run an uncertified prop, period.

If you are thinking of ordering a propeller you need to check out the pricing, the MTV-9 is $15,450 retail not $20,000 and McFarlane normally sell them for 10% off or $13,950, same as the uncertified Whirlwind.

One last point is I would think about is re-sale of the aircraft. Because the MT propeller is a certified propeller it will add value to your work and all you have invested in the aircraft. At some point in time the aircraft will be sold, it will sell for more with a known certified propeller.

"untested." Strong and inaccurate word. I came from certified Mooney world. There are great products and complete trash in both certified and EAB fleets. I am an anal AF engineer and have been impressed many times with some products available to EABs. It's not hard to find which companies have good engineered products and earned reputations. Just because a product has a significant paper trail doesn't mean it's safe or reliable (737 MAX). Just because something was developed outside of the known players or FAA cert processes doesn't mean it's not viable (Garmin G3, initially). There's a ton of examples the members here could reference. One of the great things about EAB, you can put a certified propeller onto your uncertified power plant which is attached to your uncertified airframe.
Another point (sorry, I’ll stop), most certified singles have f’ing horrible electrical system architecture but they are certified. Would a builder of similar mindset to the quoted forgo the advantages of safer architecture to mimic that of an aircraft that had a TC?

BloomerJohn
02-24-2021, 11:42 AM
I will stay with MT and my wife feels much more at ease when she found there has been zero in-flight failures of MT props with over 80,000 in use. No other mfr she researched could claim the same stats. A whirlwind prop lost a blade in flight at a European Airshow and resulted in the loss of the pilot. Hartzell metal props have long history of AD's and some blade failures due to nicks and FOD. Their composite props are pretty new and don't have a lot of numbers or time in use to compare to MT. She also found comfort in the fact the MT wood core has no life limits and is not subject to fatigue or failure even when damaged. Somewhere in the web she found an article with pics of a twin engine plane that did a gear up landing, broke off almost half of each MT prop blade and then powered up, climbed and circled the airport for 14 minutes aloft before making a normal landing. The pilot commented his life was saved because of the design of the MT props and how they sheared cleanly at impact and allowed for continued operation.

Frogman208
02-24-2021, 11:50 AM
It seems like there is always more to the story. It is my understanding that the Whirlwind is untested and uncertified. One of the last things you want to worry about while flying is the integrity of your propeller. I would never run an uncertified prop, period.

If you are thinking of ordering a propeller you need to check out the pricing, the MTV-9 is $15,450 retail not $20,000 and McFarlane normally sells them for 10% off or $13,950, same as the uncertified Whirlwind.

One last point is I would think about is re-sale of the aircraft. Because the MT propeller is a certified propeller it will add value to your work and all you have invested in the aircraft. At some point in time the aircraft will be sold, it will sell for more with a known certified propeller.
Fair points SkyJunkie however the $13.9K price is NOT what I was quoted from McFarlane for one that was in stock at the time but not recent so that may have changed. Experimental vs Certified is very obviously debatable and nothing wrong with MT propellers. My intention was to mention other options available outside MT and Hartzell for non-counterweight engines.

Frogman208
02-24-2021, 02:17 PM
I will stay with MT and my wife feels much more at ease when she found there has been zero in-flight failures of MT props with over 80,000 in use. No other mfr she researched could claim the same stats. A whirlwind prop lost a blade in flight at a European Airshow and resulted in the loss of the pilot. Hartzell metal props have long history of AD's and some blade failures due to nicks and FOD. Their composite props are pretty new and don't have a lot of numbers or time in use to compare to MT. She also found comfort in the fact the MT wood core has no life limits and is not subject to fatigue or failure even when damaged. Somewhere in the web she found an article with pics of a twin engine plane that did a gear up landing, broke off almost half of each MT prop blade and then powered up, climbed and circled the airport for 14 minutes aloft before making a normal landing. The pilot commented his life was saved because of the design of the MT props and how they sheared cleanly at impact and allowed for continued operation.
Hey John just out of curiosity, can you share the information on the European Airshow propeller failure? First time I've heard of that and would really like to know if that's accurate. Thanks for sharing

Bavafa
02-24-2021, 05:19 PM
Somewhere in the web she found an article with pics of a twin engine plane that did a gear up landing, broke off almost half of each MT prop blade and then powered up, climbed and circled the airport for 14 minutes aloft before making a normal landing. The pilot commented his life was saved because of the design of the MT props and how they sheared cleanly at impact and allowed for continued operation.

I don't know the circumstance of the situation that someone losing almost half of each blade and still decide to go back up in the air if he had already done a gear up landing but on the surface it sounds, at best, like a poor judgement in aviating. In fact I am wondering with the gear up landing, how do you get it back to the speed that the plane can actually start flying again? Who knows I guess.

MT is a great prop, no doubt but I lost faith in them when my buddy had to sent his back just after a year or less of flying and they would not cover any of the repair cost. I can't remember if there was an AD on the prop or was spiting grease but it was not damaged due to accident or negligent.
Of course their prop governor typically on a 360 engine which is the JIHOSTROJ brand made in Czech republic and they just stick their own tag on it, has a calendar year overhaul where as if you buy the exact governor from JIHOSTROJ, it does not.

David Paule
02-24-2021, 06:32 PM
It seems like there is always more to the story. It is my understanding that the Whirlwind is ... uncertified....

Well, so are our airplanes.

Dave

Frogman208
03-02-2021, 05:03 PM
So I never heard back from BloomerJohn on the alleged Whirlwind prop failure in Europe sometime in the past but looking at his profile, his name is the same John Nielsen from Flight Resources (maybe a coincident) and a website under mtprops.com. If so, I've spoken to him on the phone and he is a really nice guy and passionate about MT propellers. I agree with him that MT propeller makes an absolute great propeller and can stand on their own without someone making 'false' or inaccurate statements about other propeller manufacturers (Whirlwind or Hartzell). I've talked to Whirlwind and they have no knowledge of a blade failure in Europe with one of their propellers. I hate calling something like this out in a forum and I hope I"m still adhering to Doug's rules but I just don't like inaccurate information just floating out there. If I'm wrong, would somebody please research the European incident and post it.

Freemasm
03-03-2021, 06:55 AM
So I never heard back from BloomerJohn on the alleged Whirlwind prop failure in Europe sometime in the past but looking at his profile, his name is the same John Nielsen from Flight Resources (maybe a coincident) and a website under mtprops.com. If so, I've spoken to him on the phone and he is a really nice guy and passionate about MT propellers. I agree with him that MT propeller makes an absolute great propeller and can stand on their own without someone making 'false' or inaccurate statements about other propeller manufacturers (Whirlwind or Hartzell). I've talked to Whirlwind and they have no knowledge of a blade failure in Europe with one of their propellers. I hate calling something like this out in a forum and I hope I"m still adhering to Doug's rules but I just don't like inaccurate information just floating out there. If I'm wrong, would somebody please research the European incident and post it.

As far as I'm concerned, Bloomerjohn's reputation is zero'd out and he has hurt the integrity of MT propellers at least in the short term. He has a direct link to MT in his profile. It's great that someone loves their product and no one is faulted for promoting such. Most everyone takes advantage of their competition's missteps (BTW I have great admiration for Ross of SDS that always seems to stay above the fray when the sh!t slinging starts). Sales puffery is protected speech. Libel/defamation are not. If there are facts to support the claims made, they should be responsibly shared. As it stands, it appears to be a shameless attempt at a smear. @Bloomerjohn; if you can share any supporting facts, it would be appreciated by all.